CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

test-driven-development

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Quality

64%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/harness/adapters/antigravity/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is test-driven-development in phatblat/dotfiles

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is an extremely lean, unambiguous redirect stub: one concrete instruction pointing to a shared skill file one level deep. It excels at token efficiency and clarity of its single action, but provides no local task guidance and no overview of what the referenced skill contains, capping actionability and progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is three lines with zero padding or explanation of known concepts ("Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md`."), and the single provenance comment ("Generated by scripts/agent-harnesses.py; do not edit directly.") is not over-explanation — every token earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

The one instruction is concrete and executable (exact path, exact verb: "Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md`"), but 100% of the actual TDD guidance is delegated to the external file, so key details are entirely missing from the body. Not 4 because the gap is total rather than minor.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a single-purpose skill under 50 lines whose single action — load and follow the referenced skill — is unambiguous, satisfying the simple-skill exception; no destructive or batch operations are involved, so no validation checkpoints are required.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body contains one clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference and inlines nothing that belongs in a separate file, but it offers no overview content at all (a pure redirect rather than a "clear overview with well-signaled references"), and the referenced path lives outside the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist).

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

32%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is a clear, well-timed trigger clause but is only half a description: it states when to use the skill without ever saying what the skill does. Its scope ("any feature or bugfix") is so broad that it would compete with nearly every development skill, and it omits the most obvious natural trigger terms for a test-driven-development skill.

Suggestions

Add a 'what' clause stating what the skill does, e.g. "Guides test-first development: write a failing test, implement the minimal code to pass it, then refactor" — this directly addresses the completeness gap (score 2).

Include the natural trigger terms users would actually say for this skill — "test", "testing", "TDD", "write tests" — none of which currently appear in the description.

Narrow the trigger scope: "any feature or bugfix" overlaps with virtually all coding work; scoping it (e.g. "when writing code with a test suite" or naming the workflow) would reduce conflict risk with other development skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a domain ("implementing any feature or bugfix", "writing implementation code") but lists zero concrete actions or capabilities. It is above anchor 1 because a domain is named rather than pure abstraction, but below anchor 3 because no concrete actions appear.

2 / 5

Completeness

Only the "when" is present ("Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code") with no "what" — matching anchor 2's "only 'when' is present without 'what'" exactly. Anchor 3 requires a clear 'what', which is absent.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"implementing", "feature", "bugfix", and "implementation code" are natural phrases users say, exceeding anchor 2's generic keywords, but the most natural trigger terms for this skill — "test", "testing", "TDD", "write tests" — never appear, so anchor 4's "good keyword coverage" is not met.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"any feature or bugfix" triggers on virtually all software development work, creating high overlap risk with many coding skills. It stays above anchor 1 because it is confined to the coding domain rather than conflicting with virtually any skill across domains.

2 / 5

Total

9

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

phatblat/dotfiles

Path

.agents/harness/adapters/antigravity/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.